NCAA president Mark Emmert outlined Monday the details of an external report on the organization's handling of an enforcement investigation into the University of Miami. / LM Otero AP

by Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports

by Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports

INDIANAPOLIS -- No other chief executive in the history of the NCAA has stirred up a storm quite like this.

Since the hiring of President Mark Emmert in 2010, the NCAA has handed down 48 major rules violation cases against member schools ‚?? a rate that is far higher than any of Emmert's predecessors, according to a review by USA TODAY Sports. It's 25% higher than the previous NCAA president and doesn't even include the two most controversial punishment cases under Emmert's watch ‚?? Penn State and Miami.

Emmert, 60, also created some strife at NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis, having ousted several well-regarded NCAA management officials with decades of experience.

He's beefed up the rules enforcement staff ‚?? the NCAA's police force ‚?? by 44%, from 41 in 2010 to a new high of 59.

By August, Emmert hopes to see a broader and faster crackdown on rule-breaking schools by increasing the NCAA's committee on infractions ‚?? its judge and jury -- from 10 to as many as 24 members.

"That's as aggressive as we can possibly be with it," Emmert told USA TODAY Sports in an exclusive interview last week at NCAA headquarters.

It's all part of a jolting reform process designed to change the NCAA ‚?? step up rules enforcement in college sports while speeding up the process with a rulebook that's less complex. But it's a mission that has been hounded by resistance to some proposals and controversy, particularly over the handling of the Miami and Penn State cases. While Emmert says he is trying to transform an organization with nearly 1,100 member schools, he's faced lawsuits and accusations of moving too fast, overstepping his bounds and firing employees who thought they were doing what he wanted.

"You get confronted with all the schools and interests (in the NCAA) and all the reasons why things move slowly come up, and it hit him in the face," said Jo Potuto, a Nebraska law professor and former chair of the NCAA infractions committee.

Under the supervision of his bosses on the NCAA executive committee, Emmert's task is to lead major reforms at the NCAA. The agenda has three main components, all stemming from a retreat Emmert held with college presidents in August 2011: improve the academic performance of athletes, get tougher on rule-breakers and simplify its notoriously complex rulebook.

Many member schools also wanted reform to help curb the runaway costs in college athletics ‚?? an effort that has failed to take off because of disagreement about what to do about it between schools with athletic programs struggling to pay bills versus the powerhouses that drive the price tag ever higher.

Overall, Emmert says the reform effort "has been quite successful despite all the noise that's been screaming around in the background."

A progress report:

Academic performance: The NCAA increased the Academic Progress Rate standard and enforced a postseason ban for teams that fall below it. If you're not on track to graduate at least half your players, you don't play in the postseason. "Sitting here today, I'd say we got an `A' on that one," Emmert says.

But there is a side effect that can form in college sports when academic expectations are increased. Some athletes flock toward majors that give them more flexibility to remain eligible for competition. For example, at LSU, where Emmert was chancellor from 1999-2004, the 2004 LSU football media guide listed about 44 of 90 football players as general studies majors. It's an issue that has continued at many schools.

Emmert acknowledged the tradeoff.

"Whenever we increase academic expectations‚?¶ we run the risk of student-athletes having a more difficult time filling in specific majors, and you see fewer students gravitating toward engineering majors or other majors where they don't have as much flexibility," Emmert says. "It doesn't surprise me."

Rules enforcement: More rules enforcement staff has led to more infractions cases. The rate of major infractions cases under Emmert is more than double that of longtime NCAA chief Walter Byers, who retired in 1987, according to NCAA data. Of the 48 major infractions cases under Emmert, 13 were in major college football and another 13 were in Division I men's basketball

"We set up a penalty structure that reinforced the serious concerns ‚?? those infractions that were serious threats to integrity ‚?? in a way that the penalty structure was shifted so there was much greater emphasis on those and not so much worry about little things," Emmert says.

Emmert said this effort is "on track." But more aggressive enforcement has brought controversy. The NCAA lacks subpoena power ‚?? the power to compel witnesses to cooperate. Instead, "innovative" investigative techniques were encouraged, at least until they backfired during the NCAA's recent investigation of the University of Miami football program. In that case, an NCAA investigator arranged to pay the attorney of a Miami booster to gather evidence through the booster's bankruptcy court proceeding.

After the tactic became public, Emmert and Miami President Donna Shalala condemned it. The investigator was fired, and so was the NCAA's vice president for enforcement, Julie Roe Lach, who recently was replaced by attorney Jon Duncan on an interim basis. To critics, it seemed Emmert was feigning outrage and sacrificing his subordinates in the face of criticism over his own agenda. Moreover, what innovative tools can the NCAA use to gather evidence and stay on the right side of ethics?

"That's a conversation we're having right now in the enforcement department," Duncan told USA TODAY Sports last month.

Deregulation: In 1952, the NCAA published its first rulebook. It was 25 pages and included just three paragraphs to regulate recruiting. In 1977, the rulebook had grown to 148 pages. In 1987, it was 299. Now it's over 700 pages covering three divisions. The Division I rulebook is "overly complex," Emmert says.

Emmert says the effort to reduce it is making "good progress, but we're going have to debate some of the more controversial pieces and see where they go."

It probably won't be easy.

One example came recently when coaches and athletic directors objected to NCAA plans to deregulate restrictions on recruiting staff size and printed materials that can be sent to recruits. Without limits, many coaches and athletic directors grew concerned it would lead to an "arms race" to outdo and outspend the competition, more like the NFL.

"Historically any time the association has tried to have any significant reform, it learns those rules were all put there for a reason," former NCAA President Cedric Dempsey told USA TODAY Sports.

Misunderstood job?

Emmert says the hardest part of his presidency so far is dispelling what he says are "mythologies" about the way the NCAA makes decisions and the power of his office. Unlike the heads of pro sports leagues, Emmert does not decide punishments. He also doesn't make the rules. Those generally are the duties of the NCAA's committee on infractions and the representatives of NCAA schools.

"I always tell people, Don't think about it as a command-control structure,'" Emmert said of the NCAA's balance of power. "Think of it like the United Nations. The decision-making structure looks and feels much more like that. In many ways, it's more complex than Congress."

Some Penn State supporters argue the structure is less democratic than that. Last year, the NCAA slammed Penn State with a four-year bowl ban and $60 million fine last year related to the alleged cover-up of child sex abuse by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.

Instead of investigating the case on its own, the NCAA bypassed its judicial arm -- the NCAA infractions committee ‚?? and accepted the findings of an investigation commissioned by the university. The case was fast-tracked by Emmert, the NCAA executive committee and the Division I board of directors. Penn State ultimately agreed to the penalties under the threat of even harsher punishment from the NCAA.

The state of Pennsylvania is now suing the NCAA, saying the aggressive action was an overreach to "boost the reputation and power of the NCAA's president."

Yet, to some degree, Emmert is herding cats ‚?? nearly 1,100 schools have 1,100 different and often conflicting interests. At the same time, critics wonder where the buck stops at the NCAA when things go wrong. Emmert is the public face of the NCAA but often notes the limitations on his power. He also points out the NCAA president doesn't get involved in infractions cases.

"It is as if each entity or individual within the (NCAA) system can point a finger at another entity or individual actor," says Richard Southall, director of the College Sport Research Institute at the University of North Carolina.

Southall described it as a "deflection of responsibility." To Emmert, he is serving the wishes of his membership.

"I think it's important to differentiate Mark Emmert's agenda, from what's the membership's agenda," he says. "The confusion that occurs most frequently with the NCAA is people tend to think of the NCAA as like the NFL or NBA. In fact, we're this very complex 1,100-member voluntary association, and every rule, every policy, every bylaw is a creature of that membership."